Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (12349)	5/11/1999 12:45:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Bob--- Centered, centered...:-)

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (12349)	5/12/1999 6:32:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Bob Lao-Tse, you have nothing to say about asses: your post, 12293, the first you addressed, to me, contain these words: <What's the higher principle that was being served when he denied that he broke the law that you claim he broke simply as some grand gesture intended to demonstrate his interpretation of the court's power?> <... his subsequent denial that he had even broken the law was contrary to his (by your view) intention to heroically stand up to a court that he believed had overstepped its bounds.> This doesn't sound anything like what I've been posting, I doubt I ever said such, so enlighten me where you get your defense, and where your accusation. In 12324, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, by ascribing your viewpoint to 2. <He was guilty of SH, and <1 ... <2 The Discovery process was legal and needed for proof [of guilt]. Do you Not believe Clinton was guilty of Paula's charge? Do you Not believe the Judges order for Discovery Testimony was legal? Do you Not believe the Discovery order was needed as a part of the evidence? [or instead and implied, it was some kind of frivolity, or had another purpose.] Your posts here and in your other forums lend credence to such general statements. In your reply post you did not object, but now you do? Rather than go into your self-serving errors of fact, I gave you a new in depth, pointedly simple, reply. Now that you do not ignore it, you offer nothing but errors and insults. I have posted possibilities that explain this painful incident, although the facts are still out. You offer what Clinton Should have done. Well Should on that, nobody can redo any of what you advocate. Please don't let the facts bother you here either. Finally, despite your dung, I finally feel some confidence in my assessment of Our President . He has a strategic focus as fuzzy as any Liberal, and a tactical focus as slimy as any Libertarian. Liberal libertarian, silly as Principled Libertarian. Now you can go insult some else.